Background Operator experience influences outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, but this association in the controlled setting of a randomized, clinical trial is unclear. Methods and Results We investigated operator‐related outcomes (30‐day and 2‐year efficacy and safety end points) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and randomized to different dual antiplatelet therapy durations and stent types. A total of 2003 patients were analyzed, and 7 operator groups were compared. The majority of preprocedural and postprocedural characteristics were imbalanced. The primary end point of the study, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accidents, did not differ among operators at 30 days or 2 years. There were no significant differences also for all other individual and composite end points analyzed at 30 days and 2 years, except for 2‐year stent thrombosis (P=0.048) and bleeding events (P=0.022 for Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5). Adjusted comparisons for the main end points showed slight differences among operators at 30 days, but not at 2 years. There was no interaction of operator with dual antiplatelet therapy duration (P=0.112) or stent type (P=0.300). Results remained entirely consistent when operators were stratified by their experience. Conclusions There was a weak signal of heterogeneity across study operators for the 30‐day, but not the 2‐year, main study outcomes. No clear effect of operator or operator experience was observed for the comparative efficacy and safety profile of the randomized stent types or dual antiplatelet therapy duration regimens. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00611286.

Background— The optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy and the risk-benefit ratio for long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting remain poorly defined. We evaluated the impact of up to 6 versus 24 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy in a broad all-comers patient population receiving a balanced proportion of Food and Drug Administration–approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents. Methods and Results— We randomly assigned 2013 patients to receive bare-metal, zotarolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, or everolimus-eluting stent implantation. At 30 days, patients in each stent group were randomly allocated to receive up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in addition to aspirin. The primary end point was a composite of death of any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 10.1% with 24-month dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with 10.0% with 6-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–1.29; P =0.91). The individual risks of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or stent thrombosis did not differ between the study groups; however, there was a consistently greater risk of hemorrhage in the 24-month clopidogrel group according to all prespecified bleeding definitions, including the recently proposed Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification. Conclusions— A regimen of 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in patients who had received a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a 6-month clopidogrel regimen in reducing the composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00611286.

Background The long-term effectiveness of drug eluting stents (DESs) in a real-world setting of female patients is currently unclear. Methods and results We analyzed long-term follow-up (up to 3 years) data from all female patients with de novo lesions enrolled in a prospective web-based multicenter registry (REAL Registry; study period, July 2002–June 2006) including all 15 hospitals performing PCI in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy. Among the 3549 women without ST elevation myocardial infarction, 2434 were treated with BMSs alone and 1115 with DESs alone. At 3 years, use of DESs was associated with a lower propensity score adjusted incidence of MACE [cardiac mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR); 19.5% vs. 24.4%; HR 0.75, p=0.006)] and TVR (11.6% vs. 15.6%; HR 0.68, p=0.004) compared with BMSs. No difference was apparent in terms of adjusted 3-year cardiac mortality or myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, after the first 6months of follow-up, a non significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis was found in the DES group. Conclusions In this real-world female registry, the use of DESs was associated with a 3-year reduction of TVR and MACE in comparison with the use of BMSs. However, the observed (non-significant) increment of late AMI makes performing larger studies to clarify the long-term safety of DESs mandatory.

Background: Different image integration modalities are available for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but their impact on procedural and fluoroscopy times has not been evaluated yet.

BACKGROUND:Inhibition of platelet aggregation after aspirin or clopidogrel intake varies greatly among patients, and previous studies have suggested that poor response to oral antiplatelet agents may increase the risk of thrombotic events, especially after coronary angioplasty. Whether this reflects suboptimal platelet inhibition per se, which might benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents such as tirofiban, is unknown.METHODS AND RESULTS:We screened 1277 patients to enroll 93 aspirin, 147 clopidogrel, and 23 dual poor responders, based on a point-of-care assay, who underwent elective coronary angioplasty at 10 European sites for stable or low-risk unstable coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either tirofiban (n=132) or placebo (n=131) on top of standard aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The primary end point, consisting of troponin I/T elevation at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, was attained in 20.4% (n=27) in the tirofiban group compared with 35.1% (n=46) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.88; P=0.009). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days in the tirofiban group also was reduced (3.8% versus 10.7%; P=0.031). The overall incidence of bleeding was low, likely explained by a substantial use of the transradial approach, and did not differ between the 2 groups.CONCLUSIONS:In low-risk patients according to clinical presentation who had poor responsiveness to standard oral platelet inhibitors via a point-of-care assay, intensified platelet inhibition with tirofiban lowers the incidence of myocardial infarction after elective coronary intervention.

Background The optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting is debated because of the scarcity of randomized controlled trials and inconsistencies arising from registry data. Although prolonged clopidogrel therapy after bare metal stenting is regarded as an effective secondary prevention measure, the safety profile of drug-eluting stents itself has been questioned in patients not receiving >= 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy.Hypothesis Twenty-four months of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting reduces the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with 6 months of treatment.Study design PRODIGY is an unblinded, multicenter, 4-by-2 randomized trial. All-comer patients with indication to coronary stenting are randomly treated-balancing randomization-with bare metal stent (no active late loss inhibition), Endeavor Sprint zotarolimus-eluting stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) (mild late loss inhibition), Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) (moderate late loss inhibition), or Xience V everolimus-eluting stent (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) (high late loss inhibition). At 30 days, patients in each stent group are randomly allocated to receive 24 or up to 6 months of clopidogrel therapy. primary end point randomization. With 1,700 individuals, this study will have >80% power to detect a 40% difference in the primary end point after sample size augmentation of 5% and a background event rate of 8%.Summary The PRODIGY trial aims to assess whether 24 months of clopidogrel therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes after coronary intervention in a broad all-comer patient population receiving a balanced mixture of stents with various anti-intimal hyperplasia potency. (Am Heart J 2010; 160: 804-11.)

Background: Recent concerns have emerged on the potential higher risk of stent thrombosis after DES implantation, that might be even more pronounced among STEMI patients. Thus, the aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and safety of DES as compared to BMS in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI.Methods: The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL). We examined all completed randomized trials of DES for STEMI. The following key words were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, stenting, DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), Cypher, paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), Taxus. Information on study design, type of stent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary endpoint, number of patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, were extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.Results: A total of 11 trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 3605 patients (1888 or 52.3% randomized to DES and 1719 or 47.7% randomized to BMS).At 12 months follow-up, no significant difference was observed in mortality (4.1% vs 4.4%, OR [95% CI]=0.91 [0.66-1.27], p=0.59, reinfarction (3.1% vs 3.4%, OR [95% CI]=0.85 [0.58, 1.23], p=0.38 or stent thrombosis (1.6% vs 2.2%, OR [ 95% CI]=0.76 [ 0.47, 1.23], p=0.22), whereas DES were associated with a significant reduction in TVR (5.0% vs 12.6%, OR [95% CI]=0.36 [0.28, 0.47], p < 0.0001). Safety and efficacy of DES were confirmed at 18 to 24 months follow-up (data available from 4 trials including 1178 patients).Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that among selected STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, SES and PES, as compared to BMS, are safe and associated with a significant reduction in TVR at 1 and 2 years follow-up. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Background Recent concerns have emerged on the potential higher risk of stent thrombosis after DES implantation, that might be even more pronounced among STEMI patients. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and safety of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (SES) as compared to BMS in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI. Methods The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL). We examined all completed randomized trials of DES for STEMI. The following keywords were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, stenting, DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), Cypher. Information on study design, type of stent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary endpoint, number of patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, were extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results A total of 9 trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 2,769 patients (1389 or 50.2% randomized to DES and 1,380 or 49.8% randomized to BMS). At 12 months follow-up, SES was associated with a significant reduction in TVR (4.9% vs. 13.6%, p < 0.0001), with a trend in benefits in mortality (2.9% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.08) and reinfarction (3.0% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.06), without any significant difference in stent thrombosis (1.9% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.36). Safety and efficacy of DES were confirmed at 2-3 years follow-up (data available from 4 trials including 569 patients). Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that among selected STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, SES as compared to BMS is safe and associated with a significant reduction in TVR at 1 and 2-3 years follow-up.

Repetto, Salvatore Colangelo, Salvatore Brugaletta, Giovanni Parrinello, Gianfranco Percoco Alessandro Furgieri, Dominick J. Angiolillo, Manel Sabatè, Martial Hamon, Alessandra Marco Valgimigli, Gianluca Campo, Nicoletta de Cesare, Emanuele Meliga, Pascal Vranckx, Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel Study the Double-Blind, Prospective, Randomized Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Clopidogrel, or Both Agents Undergoing Elective Coronary Intervention: Results From Intensifying Platelet Inhibition With Tirofiban in Poor Responders to Aspirin, Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online ISSN: 1524-4539 Copyright © 2009 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. is published by the American Heart Association, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231 Circulation doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.833236 2009;119:3215-3222; originally published online June 15, 2009; Circulation. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/25/3215 World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the

Context Abciximab infusion and uncoated- stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST- segment elevation myocardial infarction ( STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high- dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug- eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries.Objective To evaluate the effect of high- dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated- stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Design, Setting, and Patients An open- label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle- branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007.Interventions High- dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation.Main Outcome Measures For drug comparison, at least 50% ST- segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference ( relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target- vessel revascularization within 8 months.Results ST- segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients ( 83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 ( 85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion ( relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958- 1.086; P <. 001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients ( 14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 ( 7.8%) with sirolimus stents ( P=. 004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates ( 10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups.Conclusions In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST- segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus- eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention.Trial Registration clinicaltrials. gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

AIMSThis study sought to evaluate the impact of an inter-hospital transfer strategy on treatment times and in-hospital and 1 year cardiac mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous intervention (p-PCI) in the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna, where an efficient region-wide system for reperfusion has been established.METHODS AND RESULTS3296 patients with STEMI, undergoing on-site p-PCI (2444 patients) (OS group) or p-PCI after inter-hospital transfer (852 patients) (T group) between 1 January 2004 and 30 June 2006 in the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna, were considered. During the study period, the number of patients undergoing p-PCI increased both for patients admitted to interventional centres and for those admitted to peripheral hospitals. At the same time, the proportion of patients with STEMI initially admitted to peripheral hospitals and not transferred and the door-to-balloon time delays of transfer patients decreased. In spite of longer door-to-balloon delay in the transfer group [112 min (86-147) vs. 71 min (46-104)], in-hospital cardiac mortality (OS 7.0 vs. T 5.4%, P = 0.10) did not significantly differ between the two groups. After multivariable adjustment, the transfer strategy was not associated with increased risk of in-hospital [odds ratio 0.956; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.633-1.442] and 1 year (hazard ratio 0.817; 95% CI 0.617-1.085) cardiac mortality.CONCLUSIONThis study, concerning an established STEMI regional network, suggests that a strategy of inter-hospital transfer for p-PCI, when supported by an organized system of care, may be applied with rapid reperfusion times and favourable short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:The long-term safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents (DES) implanted during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with DES vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. METHODS:In the present analysis 4764 patients were enrolled (706, 15%, received DES). We assessed the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS:Overall, no significant difference emerged for the rates of death and reinfarction. DES implantation was associated to a reduction of target vessel revascularization (TVR) (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.47-0.91; p=0.01), leading to a MACE reduction (HR 0.7, 95%CI 0.56-0.86; p<0.01). In particular, during the first 2 years we observed less adverse events in the DES group, mainly because of a lower TVR rate (TVR: HR 0.56, 95%CI 0.37-0.83, p<0.01; MACE: HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.54-0.94, p=0.01). On the contrary, during the third year, adverse events tended to be higher in the DES group. ST did not differ between DES and BMS groups (p=0.6). No differences were observed between sirolimus eluting stents and paclitaxel eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS:DES implantation during primary PCI is safe and associated with a significant TVR and MACE reduction in the first two years, whereas a trend to have more adverse events in the third year is observed. More data about long-term follow-up are needed to better evaluate both safety and efficacy of DES in the setting of STEMI.

Objective: To obtain a quantitative estimate of the overall costs and cost effectiveness ratio of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) implantation and tirofiban infusion compared to abciximab and bare metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing primary intervention for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).Methods: In the attempt to make the unrestricted use of SES in STEMI patients affordable under the current European reimbursement system, between March 6, 2003, and April 23, 2004, 175 patients with STEMI were randomized to receive tirofiban infusion and SES versus abciximab and BMS as part of the STRATEGY trial. Costs and outcome were monitored for 2 years.Results: The cost of the index procedure was (sic)9345 +/- 2573 and (sic)9657 +/- 2114 for the tirofiban + SES and abciximab + BMS group, respectively ( P=0.048). At follow-up, the composite of death or myocardial infarction and the costs not related to target vessel revascularisation (TVR) did not differ in the two groups while the rate of TVR and the costs related to it were lower in the tirofiban + SES group. The overall 2-year cost of treating a patient in the tirofiban + SES group was (sic)10,971 +/- 4185 compared to (sic)12,066 +/- 4636 for the abciximab + BMS group (P=0.006). Halving the cost of abciximab resulted in higher initial hospital costs for the tirofiban + SES but overall cost neutrality over a 24-month time horizon.Conclusions: Compared to abciximab + BMS, tirofiban infusion + SES implantation in STEMI patients was an economically dominant strategy, with an improved composite outcome and lower overall costs. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

PURPOSE:To assess whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition using tirofiban in low risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may reduce the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction compared to standard care in poor responders to aspirin and/or clopidogrel.METHODS:We will enroll patients at ten European sites or more to participate in the Tailoring Treatment with Tirofiban in patients showing Resistance to aspirin and/or Resistance to clopidogrel (3T/2R) study with a pre-specified sample size of 240 patients out of 1,100 or more who will undergo screening. The primary outcome measure is troponin I or T elevation ratio at least three times the upper limit of normal within 48 h after completion of the PCI.CONCLUSION:The results of 3T/2R study will evaluate whether tailored intensification of anti-platelet treatment based on poor individual response to oral anti-platelet agents may modulate the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction during PCI. Our findings attempt at unraveling a new era of individualized anti-platelet treatment through the use of point-of-care assessment.

Platelet reactivity plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of ischemic adverse events during and after acute coronary syndromes (ACS), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors are the strongest antiplatelet agents currently available on the market and three different compounds, namely abciximab, tirofiban, and eptifibatide, have been approved for clinical use. Abciximab has been investigated in the clinical field far more extensively than the other GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors. Abciximab is an anti-integrin Fab fragment of a human - mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody with high affinity and a slow dissociation rate from the GP IIb/IIIa platelet receptor. Abciximab, given shortly before the coronary intervention, is superior to placebo in reducing the acute risk of ischemic complications (EPIC, EPISTENT, EPILOG trials); moreover, in the ISAR-REACT 2 study abciximab has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse events in patients with non ST-segment elevation ACS who are undergoing PCI even after optimal pre-treatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel. Finally, abciximab has been also used in abciximab-coated stent, with only bolus administration regimen and for direct intracoronary use with promising results that may extend and/or modify its current use in clinical practice in future.

Objectives This study was designed to investigate whether poor responders to thienopyridines after clopidogrel remain so even after ticlopidine administration (class effect) or whether a drug-specific effect exists between currently available thienopyridines.Background Whether clopidogrel poor responders also display inadequate platelet inhibition after ticlopidine administration remains undefined.Methods Platelet aggregation (PA) was measured in 143 patients, while they were taking aspirin, with light transmission aggregometry using adenosine diphosphate as an agonist at baseline (T-O) and at clopidogrel steady state (T-1). After T-1 clopidogrel was stopped and substituted with ticlopidine. Then PA was assessed at ticlopidine steady state (T-2). Resistance was defined as an absolute difference between T-O and after-treatment (T-1 or T-2) PA <= 10%.Results Clopidogrel and ticlopidine responsiveness was normally distributed; PA at T-1, did not differ compared with T-2 Thirty (21%) and 28 (19%) patients were clopidogrel and ticlopidine nonresponders, respectively. Only 5 patients (3.5%) were nonresponders to both clopidogrel and ticlopidine (class effect), whereas 25 patients (83%) who were clopidogrel nonresponders at T-1 were responsive to ticlopidine, reaching a higher level of platelet inhibition at T-2 (PA 69 +/- 15 vs. 44 +/- 18, p < 0.01) (drug-specific response). On the other hand, 23 patients who were responsive to clopidogrel showed resistance to ticlopidine at T2 (PA 46 +/- 15 vs. 70 +/- 15, p < 0.01) (drug-specific response).Conclusions Poor responsiveness to either clopidogrel or ticlopidine at steady state was common, whereas nonresponders to both drugs were relatively infrequent (3.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.5% to 7.9%), suggesting that poor response to thienopyridines may frequently be a drug-specific mechanism.

Percutaneous revascularization of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remains a challenging task. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to decrease the incidence of restenosis in de novo native coronary artery lesions. However, their clinical value in SVGs remains to be established. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs and bare metal stents (BMSs) for de novo lesions in SVGs. In a large prospective, multicenter registry, 360 patients underwent stenting of a de novo lesion in SVGs using BMSs (288 patients) or DESs (72 patients). Incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization, was recorded at a 12-month follow-up. Compared with the DES group, patients receiving BMSs were more likely to be men, to have chronic renal insufficiency or higher Charlson scores, but less likely to have undergone previous percutaneous coronary intervention. Incidence of MACEs at 12-month follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (17.8% in DES group vs 20.3% in BMS group, respectively, p = 0.460). Cox regression analysis identified age, chronic renal failure, cardiogenic shock at presentation, and ostial location of stenosis as independent predictors of long-term MACEs. In conclusion, our data suggest that rates of 12-month MACEs associated with the use of DESs and BMSs are similar in patients undergoing treatment of de novo lesions in SVGs.

Objectives We sought to investigate whether the previously reported midterm clinical benefit of planned sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was maintained over a 24-month time period. Moreover, the distribution of clinical events in relation to thienopyricline discontinuation was thoroughly investigated.Background No randomized data are currently available on the safety/benefit profile of SES in this subset of patients beyond 12 months.Methods Between March 2003 and April 2004, 175 patients with STEMI were randomly allocated to tirofiban infusion followed by SES or abciximab plus bare-metal stent (BMS). Complete follow-up information up to 720 days was available for all patients.Results The cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) remained lower in the tirofiban-SES compared with the abciximab-BMS group at 2 years (24.2% vs. 38.6%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.33 to 0.98]; p = 0.038). The composite of death/Ml was similar in the tirofiban-SES (16.1%) and the abciximab-BMS groups (20.5%, HR 0.77 [95% Cl 0.38 to 1.55]; p 0.43) while the need for TVR was markedly reduced (9.8% vs. 25.5%, respectively; HR 0.34 [95% Cl 0.16 to 0.77]; p = 0.01) in the tirofiban-SES arm. The rate of confirmed, probable, or possible stent thrombosis did not differ in the 2 groups, nor the incidence of death/Ml after thienopyridine discontinuation.Conclusions The midterm clinical benefit of planned SES implantation assisted by tirofiban infusion in STEMI patients was mainly carried over after 2 years with no overall excess of late adverse events after thienopyridine discontinuation.